Just a thought.

[VoiceofReason]

I was just thinking that people should start writing Kimber, Beretta etc. and suggest they move their corporate headquarters and manufacturing to Texas, or more gun friendly states than New York or Maryland.

I can’t understand why they are helping the economy of those states when those states would happily legislate or regulate them out of business.

[GeekwithaGun]

[The Annoyed Man]

I was just thinking that people should start writing Kimber, Beretta etc. and suggest they move their corporate headquarters and manufacturing to Texas, or more gun friendly states than New York or Maryland.

I can’t understand why they are helping the economy of those states when those states would happily legislate or regulate them out of business.

Because it is one thing to move an office. It's quite another thing to move a factory. I moved here from California (a state hostile to the needs of small businesses) when we moved an entire small printing/engraving business from North Hollywood to Dallas — and that was a relatively small scale operation. But what it meant for us was that for about 2 weeks, we were unable to produce anything at all because very heavy equipment like printing presses had to be uninstalled from where they were bolted to a concrete floor, put on trucks, driven to Texas, riggers hired to get the equipment off the trucks and bolted to the floors in the new location, get the power to where each press was located, etc., etc. And then there was the fact that only half of our employees were willing to make the move to Texas. Finding a qualified printing press operator is not that difficult, but finding a qualified engraving press operator is a different matter. They are an increasingly rare breed. Then there was the matter of outsourcing the engraving to another engraver in Waco until we could get our own presses up and running with newly hired qualified press operators. Then there was the matter of providing temporary housing in a hotel for the employees who chose to move with the company — and on and on and on and on.

And Kimber is a much larger corporation than our little operation was. They are already struggling to keep up with current production demands. Just pulling the plug and moving could possibly kill their business. Thus, there is only one way in which they could afford to make the move, and that would be for the state of Texas to aggressively pursue recruiting them to move. There would have to be considerable tax incentives offered, reduced rate or no charge financing, and other financial means of making it possible. Even if 100% of Kimber's employees were willing to make the move (not bloody likely), they only way they could make it work would be to build a whole new manufacturing facility here in Texas, with all new machining and manufacturing equipment in place and the entire infrastructure pre-positioned.

In order to understand Kimber's situation, you have to know something about their history.

Kimber was founded in 1979 in Oregon. It went belly up and liquidated 1989 or '90, its equipment being relegated to an Oregon junk yard. It is significant that several of their employees left at that time, along with Dan Cooper, to found Cooper Arms. Dan Cooper has proven to be less than a friend to the average gun owner — contributing large amounts of money to political candidates who foster an anti-gun climate. As long as he can continue to sell $10K rifles to the wealthy, he doesn't give a rip about the rest of us. In fact, Cooper Arms finally forced him out because his continued presence was damaging to their business interests. The reason this is significant is that Dan Cooper was part of the early Kimber corporate culture.

Les Edelman, who owned Nationwide Sports Distributors, became the financial backing to an attempt to revive Kimber of Oregon initiated by Greg Warne. They bought the original tooling and founded Kimber of America in the mid-'90s. Edelman eventually gained the controlling interest in the company. In the meantime, Edelman separately invested in Yonkers-based Jerico Precision Manufacturing, a defense contractor. He combined Jerico Precision's existing capabilities with Kimber's reputation and dealer network to develop the line of Kimber 1911s. Over time, all of Kimber's manufacturing was moved to the Yonkers plant. But the point is that Kimber didn't just pick up and move then. There was a period of time in which the capabilities and manufacturing overlapped between Oregon and New York. And I am willing to bet that they receive some financial benefits from Yonkers and New York State to stay right where they are. (It would be interesting to know if Kimber is among the manufactures frivolously sued by Bloomberg's MAIG.) But it is notable that the move from Oregon to NY was based strictly on manufacturing and business needs, and had nothing really to do with politics, since by the 1990s, New York's political culture was already decidedly anti-gun.

My point is that, even though Kimber's products may be tightly regulated and difficult to obtain within the state where they are manufactured, A) they have difficulty meeting the demand from out of state business as it is, so they're actually sitting in the catbird seat for a manufacturer; B) they probably receive financial incentives to stay in NY, and they probably haven't received any aggressive recruitment efforts from TX or other states; C) as it is, they don't have to deal with employee (100+ in 2007) and infrastructure implications of moving; and D) they are still a business which has to make decisions based on their financial bottom line, and not necessarily on the personal politics of their end users or the individual employees.

So on the surface of it, sure it would make sense to move to a gun friendlier state, but there may be significant financial disincentives to moving. So I just think that it is a whole lot more complicated than it seems on the surface for any manufacturer to just pick up and move. Springfield Armory is in Illinois. Is there any worst state for guns than Illinois? Remington's Ilion Firearms Plant & Custom Shop is located in Ilion, New York. Winchester is in Connecticut, another left of center state. Colt is in Connecticut. Dan Wesson Arms is in New York. Para Ordinance is in anti-gun Canada. Ruger is in Connecticut. Smith & Wesson is in Massachusetts. Beretta is located in increasingly anti-gun Maryland. Marlin has facilities in Connecticut. And so on and so on and so on. Surely one of those would move if there were any advantage in it for them.

[ELB]

You are right on the big picture, but...

... Para Ordinance is in anti-gun Canada...

Not any more, I believe. Para Ordnance moved its HQ to North Carolina in 2008, and its manufacturing in 2009, and is now known as Para USA. I don't know if any remnants remain in Canada at all.

But your larger point still stands. It is difficult to move the equipment and the employee expertise across the country...

[Bart]

Boycott until they do.

[The Annoyed Man]

You are right on the big picture, but...

... Para Ordinance is in anti-gun Canada...

Not any more, I believe. Para Ordnance moved its HQ to North Carolina in 2008, and its manufacturing in 2009, and is now known as Para USA. I don't know if any remnants remain in Canada at all.

I stand corrected. But even they prove the point to some extent. Things must have gotten really bad for them to move. And note that they moved to the east coast, not to Texas. Was Texas even under consideration when they made their decision?

I can tell you why we picked Texas, specifically Dallas, over the other areas we looked at moving to — which were Atlanta, Georgia, Wilmington, Ohio, Louisville, Kentucky, and Nashville, Tennessee. We had a national customer base. Atlanta made some sense because there is still an engraving industry there, but it meant that we would be shipping all the way across the country to a large part of our customer base, which we were already dealing with in L.A. Wilmington would have put us at the main DHL hub (we used DHL almost exclusively), but it also would have subjected us to occasional production and shipping shutdowns due to bad winter weather. Kentucky and Nashville were eliminated as I recall because of lack of a major airfreight hub immediately nearby. And that left Dallas, which turned out to be an ideal choice because it is so centrally located on the map.

The owner of the company was a political conservative non-gun owner. He was sympathetic to the 2nd Amendment, but chose not to exercise his right. The fact that he elected to move the company to a more conservative area was a bonus, but it did not figure into choosing Dallas. After all, we were looking at politically liberal Atlanta. The decision was rendered based specifically on business reasons, and not political ideology.

[VoiceofReason]

Thanks for the education Annoyed man. You seem to be extremely informed on the subject. I don’t know about Kimber, but Beretta was one of those sued by MAIG.

I would imagine that if Kimber or any other major firearms manufacturer even hinted at moving, Texas or any other state would offer to make it worth their while, considering the economy.

I don’t believe this is an issue of the “personal politics of their end users” as much as it is a Constitutional and moral issue. The outcome relies on politics.

Would I be correct in assuming the taxes of Kimber and Beretta are presently supporting anti-gun state governments?

Would I be correct in assuming that part of what we pay for a Kimber, Beretta etc. presently goes to support anti-gun state governments?

If Bloomberg and his ilk have their way it won’t be just the residence of New York and Maryland that cannot own firearms, it will be everyone in the entire United States.

But I am sure you are aware of that.

[VoiceofReason]

Annoyed Man,

I am not trying to be facetious, but if the entire future of the business rested on “political ideology”, would the owner of the company have moved to, or remained in a state, that supported the political ideology that would have wiped out the business?

I believe in your post you stated you “moved here from California (a state hostile to the needs of small businesses)”.

By the way, you and the owner of your company are one of very few from California that I would say to them - “Welcome to Texas”.

[The Annoyed Man]

Maryland residents can own firearms, but their state are not as libertarian about it as Texas is, and even Texas is not completely libertarian in that regard. If we were, we would be like Vermont, where no permit to carry concealed or open is required.

In answer to your questions regarding the constitutional issues, yes, their taxes are going toward supporting anti-gun state governments, but there is a difference between state and federal government. If 99% of Kimber's customers are located outside of New York; and if Kimber receives financial incentives to remain in New York; and as long as New York does not outlaw the manufacture of guns; then they are not hurting themselves by staying. Very, very few corporations will make decisions based on political ideology because they are answerable to the shareholders. And the shareholders care more about profitability, not who you voted for.

You can try boycotting their products as a financial incentive, but good luck. People wanted to boycott Smith & Wesson and Ruger when they caved on the gun locks back when. Seems to me that a decade later, they're both doing fine. Not enough gun buyers could be persuaded to switch brands for the purpose of making a political statement that nobody else is going to know about.

[VoiceofReason]

Maryland residents can own firearms, but their state are not as libertarian about it as Texas is, and even Texas is not completely libertarian in that regard. If we were, we would be like Vermont, where no permit to carry concealed or open is required.

In answer to your questions regarding the constitutional issues, yes, their taxes are going toward supporting anti-gun state governments, but there is a difference between state and federal government. If 99% of Kimber's customers are located outside of New York; and if Kimber receives financial incentives to remain in New York; and as long as New York does not outlaw the manufacture of guns; then they are not hurting themselves by staying. Very, very few corporations will make decisions based on political ideology because they are answerable to the shareholders. And the shareholders care more about profitability, not who you voted for.

You can try boycotting their products as a financial incentive, but good luck. People wanted to boycott Smith & Wesson and Ruger when they caved on the gun locks back when. Seems to me that a decade later, they're both doing fine. Not enough gun buyers could be persuaded to switch brands for the purpose of making a political statement that nobody else is going to know about.

Don’t believe I mentioned boycott. I believe that was Bart.

Great signature Bart.

[The Annoyed Man]

Annoyed Man,

I am not trying to be facetious, but if the entire future of the business rested on “political ideology”, would the owner of the company have moved to, or remained in a state, that supported the political ideology that would have wiped out the business?

I believe in your post you stated you “moved here from California (a state hostile to the needs of small businesses)”.

By the way, you and the owner of your company are one of very few from California that I would say to them - “Welcome to Texas”.

Thanks for the welcome. We've actually been here since 2006 now. And in our case, you're right. We made the move because liberals in California are killing small businesses. But it wasn't just the theoretical principle of the thing. We were actually being negatively affected in very real ways by the policies, and we had to leave to survive. But we weren't looking for a conservative or liberal state. We were looking for one where a small business would be welcome. Democrat Ohio would have fit that bill if the weather weren't a consideration. Not all left of center states view capitalism as an evil to be taxed into extinction. But keep in mind here that our company's decision to move was not driven by 2nd Amendment issues, but by business taxation and regulation issues.

Sorry about confusing you with Bart.

[ELB]

You are right on the big picture, but...

... Para Ordinance is in anti-gun Canada...

Not any more, I believe. Para Ordnance moved its HQ to North Carolina in 2008, and its manufacturing in 2009, and is now known as Para USA. I don't know if any remnants remain in Canada at all.

I stand corrected. But even they prove the point to some extent. Things must have gotten really bad for them to move. And note that they moved to the east coast, not to Texas. Was Texas even under consideration when they made their decision?

I don't recall reading about any other locations, but when I read about it they had already made their decision. I suspect a major part of it was that the majority of their market was probably in the USA, not Canada, and they got tired of the import/export rigamarole along with the anti-gun, especially anti-handgun, atmosphere in Canada.

..People wanted to boycott Smith & Wesson and Ruger when they caved on the gun locks back when. Seems to me that a decade later, they're both doing fine. Not enough gun buyers could be persuaded to switch brands for the purpose of making a political statement that nobody else is going to know about...

My note on ParaOrdnance was a minor correction, that as I said, did not negate the larger point. However, with regard to S&W, I will dispute that a boycott had no effect.

The firearms industry has a much narrower market base than many others, and gunowners are indeed politically oriented. Heck, having a gun is a political statement. S&W did lose sales and gain much bad publicity in its civilian market when they caved to the Clintons, and that agreement wasn't just about gunlocks -- it also included introducing "smart gun" technology in all newly designed handguns, barring gun sales - including gun show sales - without a background check of the buyer, and limiting multiple handgun sales, presumably by making their distributors and retailers agree or forego S&W products.

The resurrection came when Saf-T-Hammer bought S&W from the owners (Tomkins PLC, a British company) who had agreed to the Clintons demands. (As I recall, Saf-T-Hammer was being led by a former S&W exec who, unhappy with the Clinton agreement, left S&W). Tomkins had bought S&W for $112M, but sold it for only $15M. Not all of the drop was due to the boycott, but the company value had taken a big hit and the boycott publicity was pretty constant in the gun press. Saf-T-Hammer repudiated the agreement (altho they didn't drop the locks altogether ), brought in some execs who were gun-oriented, unlike the Tomkins people, and rebuilt the company. S&W didn't survive because the boycott failed -- they survived because they changed course.

I think it is true that boycotts are hard to get results with -- they require a sustained effort by a lot of people, at least in relation to the market size, and that is hard to maintain for lesser causes.

As for many business decisions being apolitical -- I think this is true also, the vast majority of them are, but it is also the reason a certain Vladimir was quoted as saying, "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." He ultimately failed, but I think he had a point...

[The Annoyed Man]

ELB, that's a good point as to S&W and boycotting. But one wonders if such a boycott would force a company to actually move from one state to another. It's an enormous expense, probably more than the boycott would cost them, so I question whether it would be an effective tactic or not.

[tacticool]

Maybe it won't convert the sinner but it's good for your soul.

[sjfcontrol]

By the way, you and the owner of your company are one of very few from California that I would say to them - “Welcome to Texas”.

Hmmm, well, there are LOTS of people that have moved from California to Texas. We did that in 2004. And although 2nd amendment rights were not a part of that decision-making process, it turned out to be an additional advantage.

Don't think everybody from California is a lefty -- Many are leaving because they AREN'T lefties, and are tired and disgusted with the political and business attitudes there. When I originally moved to CA, they had a republican governor (one NOT married to a Kennedy). Over the years, the growth of the inner-city in LA, and the fruits in SF overwhelmed the more conservative rest of the state.

Anyway, I may not have been born here, but I got here a soon as I could!